VBAC and Prior Cervical Dilation

Some providers look for any excuse to discourage people from Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC). They might tell you that you're not a good candidate for VBAC because you are too old, too fat, too short, that you have to have your baby before your due date, that you've gained too much weight, and on and on.

One of the tools that is sometimes used to discourage VBAC is the prior dilation in the previous labor. Some have been told that if they dilated nearly all the way or even all the way to 10 cm, they have little or no chance at a VBAC. Others have been told the opposite, that if they didn't dilate very far previously, their chances of VBAC are low.

But what does the research actually say? 

Prior Dilation and VBAC

A New York study (Hoskins and Gomez 1997) was one of the first studies to look at prior dilation and its association with later VBAC. It found a much greater VBAC rate in those who had a c-section at lower dilation. The VBAC rate at later dilation was only 13%.

However, this is the only study I could find that had more VBACs in the group with less dilation. But because this 1997 study was the first one to really examine the question, its findings have stuck in many doctors' memories, despite contradictory studies, so you sometimes still hear this argument.

A small Nigerian study (Onifade and Omigbodun, 2003) found that prior dilation had no influence on later VBAC. They concluded, "the maximum cervical dilatation reached before primary caesarean section need not be factored into a decision for VBAC."

On the other hand, most studies have found that the greater your dilation in a previous labor, the better your chances at a subsequent VBAC.

One 2001 Canadian study found a higher VBAC rate (75%) among those whose cesareans occurred after dystocia in the second stage of labor/after full dilation. Do note, though, that the group where dystocia occurred in the first stage still had a 66% VBAC rate.

A Korean study (Kwon 2009) also found that those with greater prior dilation had more VBACs.

A Danish study (Abildgaard 2013) had a very low overall VBAC rate but even so found more VBACs in those with greater prior dilation. N=373 women had a Trial of Labor. Those with 4-8 cm dilation before their first cesarean had a 39% VBAC rate, whereas those who were fully or nearly fully dilated at cesarean had a 59% VBAC rate. 

And now, a new study (Lindblad Wollman 2018) also suggests that the chance of VBAC is increased with greater prior dilation. This was a large population-based cohort study in Sweden for 6 years from 2008-2014; such a large study gives its findings extra heft.  N=3,116 women with 1 prior cesarean had a Trial of Labor (TOL). 70% had a VBAC. In those who had a prior cesarean for dystocia:

... increasing cervical dilation in first labor decreased the risk of repeat cesarean in second labor. The adjusted RR of repeat cesarean was 2.48 with dilation ≤5 cm, 1.98 with dilation 6-10 cm, and 1.46 if fully dilated. 

CONCLUSIONS: Almost 70% of all women eligible for trial of labor after cesarean had a vaginal birth, even women with a history of labor dystocia had a good chance of success. A greater cervical dilation in the first delivery ending with a cesarean was not in vain, since the chance of vaginal birth in the subsequent delivery increased with greater dilation.

Overall, the research suggests pretty strongly that the more dilation you had previously, the better your likelihood for a VBAC later. Why might that be? Perhaps the key is how ripe the mother's cervix was before labor (a ripe cervix dilates more easily), and that once you've fully dilated once, you're likely to again.

What it doesn't mean is that someone who didn't dilate very far the first time is a bad candidate for a VBAC. As the Swedish study above points out, "even women with a history of labor dystocia had a good chance of success."

But really, in the end, who cares how many centimeters you dilated last time? The point is that with patience and a supportive provider, most people will have a VBAC, regardless of risk factors. That's all you really need to know.

Providers, Stop Looking for Excuses 

As the top graphic of this post points out, VBAC is woefully underused. About 90% of those with prior cesareans are eligible for a VBAC, yet only about 10% end up having one. Yes, some people choose repeat cesareans, and some people labor for a VBAC but end up with another cesarean. However, the biggest reason for the low number of VBACs is because VBAC has been strongly discouraged by many providers.

Some providers won't support VBAC at all. Others pretend to be supportive but place so many limitations on a trial of labor that almost no one gets a VBAC. Others limit trials of labor to only those with the MOST favorable risk factors.

Providers, stop making excuses. Don't use prior cervical dilation or past arrest disorder or gestational age or Body Mass Index or maternal age or any of a thousand other lame excuses to discourage people from a VBAC.

Arbitrarily limiting VBAC to those with only the most favorable factors makes the repeat cesarean rate far too high, results in far too many complications, and does more harm than good. Our skyrocketing rate of placental abnormalities, cesarean scar pregnancies, and maternal mortality rates reflect that.

Sure, certain factors may make a VBAC slightly more or less likely, but the stark truth is that the majority of those who labor will have a VBAC, even when there are less favorable risk factors.

Stop looking for excuses to not support VBAC. Stop the high-handed paternalism that peremptorily decides birthing choices for others. Stop infantalizing women and taking away their autonomy to make their own medical decisions. People should be counseled about the benefits and risks of each option, but in the end the final choice belongs to the mother.

Unless someone has a legitimate medical contraindication, stop discouraging people from pursuing a VBAC if they want one.

References

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Dec;97(12):1524-1529. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13447. Epub 2018 Sep 25. Risk of repeat cesarean delivery in women undergoing trial of labor: A population-based cohort study. Lindblad Wollmann C, Ahlberg M, Saltvedt S, Johansson K, Elvander C, Stephansson O. PMID: 30132803

... We investigated the association between indication of first cesarean and cervical dilation during labor preceding the first cesarean and risk of repeat cesarean in women undergoing trial of labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of all women delivering in the Stockholm-Gotland region, Sweden, between 2008 and 2014. The population consisted of 3116 women with a first cesarean undergoing a trial of labor with a singleton infant in cephalic presentation at ≥37 weeks of gestation... In women with a cesarean due to dystocia, increasing cervical dilation in first labor decreased the risk of repeat cesarean in second labor. The adjusted RR of repeat cesarean was 2.48 with dilation ≤5 cm, 1.98 with dilation 6-10 cm, and 1.46 if fully dilated. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 70% of all women eligible for trial of labor after cesarean had a vaginal birth, even women with a history of labor dystocia had a good chance of success. A greater cervical dilation in the first delivery ending with a cesarean was not in vain, since the chance of vaginal birth in the subsequent delivery increased with greater dilation.

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Feb;92(2):193-7. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12023. Epub 2012 Nov 5. Cervical dilation at the time of cesarean section for dystocia -- effect on subsequent trial of labor. Abildgaard H, Ingerslev MD, Nickelsen C, Secher NJ. PMID: 23025257

... DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: University hospital in Copenhagen capital area. POPULATION: All women with a prior cesarean section due to dystocia who had undergone a subsequent pregnancy with a singleton delivery during 2006-2010. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for prior vaginal birth, cervical dilation reached before cesarean section and induction of labor, gestational age, use of oxytocin, epidural anesthesia and mode of birth was collected. RESULTS: A total of 889 women were included; 373 had had a trial of labor. The success rate for vaginal birth among women with prior cesarean section for dystocia at 4-8 cm dilation was 39%, but 59% for women in whom prior cesarean section had been done at a fully or almost fully dilated cervix (9-10 cm) (p < 0.001). Among the women with a previous vaginal delivery prior to their cesarean section, the success rate for vaginal birth was 76.2%, in contrast to 48.9% in the group without a previous vaginal delivery (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Women who had a trial of labor after a prior cesarean section for dystocia done late in labor and women with a vaginal delivery prior to their cesarean section had a greater chance of a successful vaginal birth during a subsequent delivery.

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009 Nov;22(11):1057-62. doi: 10.3109/14767050902874089. Cervical dilatation at the time of cesarean section may affect the success of a subsequent vaginal delivery. Kwon JY, Jo YS, Lee GS, Kim SJ, Shin JC, Lee Y. PMID: 19900044

... The medical records of women attempting VBAC between January 2000 and February 2008 were reviewed. All women had only one previous cesarean and underwent spontaneous labor. RESULTS: Among 1148 enrolled women, 956 (83.3%) achieved a successful VBAC. Birth weight, previous indication for cesarean delivery and oxytocin augmentation were significantly associated with VBAC outcome. By multivariate analysis, a cervical dilatation >or=8 cm at previous cesarean was independently predictive of successful VBAC in women with a previous cesarean for non-recurrent indications (p = 0.046), yielding a VBAC success rate of 93.1%, whereas the extent of cervical dilatation at the previous cesarean did not affect the outcome of subsequent delivery in women with a previous cesarean for recurrent indications. CONCLUSIONS: Women with cesarean for non-recurrent indications who achieved a cervical dilatation >or=8 cm may be the best candidates for VBAC, with the greatest likelihood of a successful VBAC. Labor progress at previous cesarean can serve as a valuable indicator for VBAC outcome in women with a previous cesarean for non-recurrent indications, and therefore should be discussed as part of preconception counseling.

Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):591-3. Correlation between maximum cervical dilatation at cesarean  delivery and subsequent vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Hoskins IA, Gomez JL. PMID: 9083318

... Relevant records of the index pregnancy (group I) were reviewed for cervical dilatation at cesarean delivery, oxytocin use, indication, neonatal weight, and epidural use. The records of the subsequent pregnancy (group II) were reviewed for successful VBAC rates, neonatal weight, oxytocin, and epidural use. RESULTS: There were 1917 patients in the study. The indications for cesarean in group I were ... arrest disorders (80%)... In those with previous cesarean deliveries for arrest disorders with cervical dilatation at 5 cm or less, the VBAC success rate was 67%. It was 73% for 6-9 cm dilatation and 13% for the fully dilated group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who attempt a VBAC may be counseled that a cesarean delivery at full dilatation is associated with a reduced chance of a subsequent successful VBAC.

AJP Rep. 2017 Jan;7(1):e31-e38. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1599129. Validation of a Prediction Model for Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery Reveals Unexpected Success in a Diverse American Population. Maykin MM, Mularz AJ, Lee LK, Valderramos SG. PMID: 28255520 Full free text here.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity of a prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) in an ethnically diverse population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women admitted at a single academic institution for a trial of labor after cesarean from May 2007 to January 2015. Individual predicted success rates were calculated using the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network prediction model. Participants were stratified into three probability-of-success groups: low (<35%), moderate (35-65%), and high (>65%). The actual versus predicted success rates were compared. RESULTS: In total, 568 women met inclusion criteria. Successful VBAC occurred in 402 (71%), compared with a predicted success rate of 66% (p = 0.016). Actual VBAC success rates were higher than predicted by the model in the low (57 vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and moderate (61 vs. 52%; p = 0.003) groups. In the high probability group, the observed and predicted VBAC rates were the same (79%). CONCLUSION: When the predicted success rate was above 65%, the model was highly accurate. In contrast, for women with predicted success rates <35%, actual VBAC rates were nearly twofold higher in our population, suggesting that they should not be discouraged by a low prediction score.

Other So-Called "Risk Factors" for Failed VBAC

• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2018/04/vbac-after-cesarean-for-arrest-of.html 
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2018/02/cinderella-vbacs-and-gestational-age.html
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2017/08/vbac-prediction-models-actual-results.html
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2013/06/cesarean-scar-pregnancy-another.html
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851168

Metformin Use in Nondiabetic Obese Pregnancy

Article from The Daily Mail, 2011

One of the strongest concerns doctors have about pregnancies in the "obese" is that larger people tend to have larger (macrosomic) babies. Although most macrosomic babies are born just fine, they do have higher rates of shoulder dystocia (babies who get stuck) and related injuries, as well as low blood sugar at birth and more cesareans. So doctors want to do everything they can to prevent abnormally big babies.

Some macrosomia is tied to high blood sugar and high insulin levels. So in hopes of preventing big babies, doctors have been using the diabetes medication, metformin, in those diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes (GD) or Polcystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS).

A number of studies have confirmed that metformin use in women with GD does modestly reduce the rate of big babies. It also lowers the rate of early pregnancy loss and prematurity in PCOS. More research is needed but metformin does seem to be a very helpful drug for people with GD or PCOS. No one is questioning this use of metformin.

However, the use of metformin in obese women WITHOUT gestational diabetes or PCOS is a different story. Doctors note that even high BMI people who are not diabetic have larger babies on average. So the working theory has been that these women must be pre-diabetic or have strong insulin resistance that increases fetal size.

So doctors began prescribing metformin to nondiabetic obese women in hopes that lowering insulin levels and borderline blood sugar would cut the odds of a big baby.

The practice was aggressively marketed to the public as a way to prevent "obese babies" before its research was even completed (see headlines quoted here from The Daily Mail 2011 and 2012).

But what does the research say about this use of metformin? Here is a quick summary of the three largest trials.

The Studies on Non-Diabetic High BMI Women

From article in the Daily Mail, 2012

Chiswick 2015

Several years ago, a large study called the EMPOWaR trial (Chiswick 2015) tested this theory in the U.K.

This study involved 15 hospitals and was a large, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, the gold standard of research. It had n=434 participants with a BMI over 30 for analysis. The maximum metformin dose was 2500 mg.

To authors' great surprise, they found that metformin did NOT lower neonatal size.

Syngelaki 2016

Some common criticisms of the EMPOWaR study were that the metformin dose was too low, the participants weren't fat enough to show any big effect, and they did not take doses strictly enough.

Therefore, in a subsequent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (Syngelaki 2016, the MOP trial), n=400 participants were limited to those with a BMI over 35. This study, too, was a randomized, double-blind study with placebo controls and was more racially diverse.

The researchers increased the metformin dose to a maximum of 3000 mg and made sure there was strong adherence to the medication. By limiting the analysis to those with a BMI over 35, increasing the dosage, including more women of color, and making sure metformin was consistently used, the authors hoped to show more of an effect.

To their surprise, results were again similar. While the metformin group had a slightly lower weight gain, fetal size was the same between groups.

Dodd 2019

Researchers just can't leave this theory alone.

Now there is a new study (the GRoW trial) out, also testing the metformin theory (Dodd 2019). This trial was done in Australia and included women with a BMI over 25 (in other words, both "overweight" and "obese"). No previous study had included those in the overweight category.

This also was a gold standard randomized study, n=514 participants. It used doses of up to 2000 mg.

It also found slightly less weight gain in the metformin group but NO difference in birthweight of the babies.

Research Summary

There have been a few other, small studies about metformin use in nondiabetic women, but none have been as large or as strong as these studies. No study so far has found that metformin lowers neonatal birthweight in nondiabetic women. That message is very clear and consistent.

There were other outcomes that weren't as clear. Some, but not all, studies found a mild lowering of prenatal weight gain. Some found decreased incidence of preeclampsia, while others did not. No other outcomes were routinely affected.

At this point, the hypothesis that metformin will "normalize" the size of high BMI women's babies has pretty well been disproven. I'm sure there will be more studies on it because the theory is a favorite of many OBs, but these are strong studies and frankly, I doubt they'll be overturned.

The good news is that no babies seem to have been harmed in these studies. However, many of the mothers experienced significant gastrointestinal side effects from the metformin and this some caused drop-outs or scaled-back dosing. If you've ever taken metformin, you know the G.I. effects can be considerable. This certainly affects people's quality of life. As a result, it's not something that should be prescribed lightly.

The take-home message from research: Metformin is a great drug that can be useful for some indications (like GD or PCOS) but in nondiabetic high BMI women it does not lower neonatal birthweight. As the authors of the EMPOWaR study concluded:

... metformin should not be used to improve pregnancy outcomes in obese women without diabetes.

The Fat-Shaming Around These Studies

Illustration from the 2012 Daily Mail article

It has to be pointed out that the U.K. public health campaign around these studies was glaringly fat-shaming.

Look at the caption above. Fat women are accused of letting their babies be "born obese," of passing on their toxic obesity in the womb through their carelessness about their health. They use the classic picture of a fat body with the head cut off, depersonalizing the subject. The person is even holding a roll of fat, pointing out visual blame so the negative message is even clearer. 

The articles were filled with scary summaries of the risks of obesity and pregnancy, without any context for those risks, how often they don't happen, and what can be done about them when they do. It's not unreasonable to inform women of size of the possible risks around weight and pregnancy, but it's another thing to misrepresent those risks to scare or shame women out of pregnancy.

The campaign was attempting to inflame the public about irresponsible fat people, implying that they refuse to be healthy and are costing the NHS huge amounts of money, taking money away from everyone else. The U.K. is a very fat-phobic place and the government is scapegoating fat people for their healthcare budget woes.

The language of the campaign was also offensive. They used the terms "fat babies" or "obese babies" in order to shame the mothers, but a big baby is not necessarily the same as an "obese" baby. They are conflating fetal size caused by diabetic complications with big babies that are simply larger than average.

All big babies are not alike. Some babies are big because of blood sugar issues, and these babies do tend to be abnormally proportioned and have more issues at birth. On the other hand, some babies are just naturally larger without it being pathological. There is a significant difference between a diabetic's baby that is 9 lbs. but only 16 inches long and a 9 lb. baby that is 22 inches long. The first is abnormal and a true concern; the second is proportional and most likely genetic. The first type often has problems being born safely and has many complications; the second type of big baby is proportional and can usually be born vaginally.

Furthermore, the campaign is simplistic and misleading. Not all obese mothers have macrosomic babies; one study found that only 17% of obese women had macrosomic babies while 83% of them did NOT. Subjecting all obese women to metformin "just in case" means medicating many people who wouldn't produce a big baby anyhow. What potential harm might that be doing?

Some people of average size also have macrosomic babies without blood sugar or insulin issues; no one knows why some babies are bigger than others. And many big babies do have vaginal births; Navti 2007 found that 83% of women who had babies around 10 pounds or more were able to have vaginal births. This shows that even very big babies can often be born vaginally, given time, patience, sufficient mobility, and a calm caregiver. We need to stop panicking over babies that are larger than average and save our intervention for those who truly need it.

Researchers: Stop trying to put the baby on a diet before it is even born. Metformin for reducing fetal size does not work in nondiabetics. 

Public Health Campaigns: Stop promoting weight stigma and fat-shaming in your campaigns about obesity and pregnancy. 



References

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Jan;7(1):15-24. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30310-3. Epub 2018 Dec 4. Effect of metformin in addition to dietary and lifestyle advice for pregnant women who are overweight or obese: the GRoW randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dodd JM, Louise J, Deussen AR, Grivell RM, Dekker G, McPhee AJ, Hague W.  PMID: 30528218

... GRoW was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which pregnant women at 10-20 weeks' gestation with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher were recruited from three public maternity units in Adelaide, SA, Australia. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated schedule to receive either metformin (to a maximum dose of 2000 mg per day) or matching placebo. Participants, their antenatal care providers, and research staff (including outcome assessors) were masked to treatment allocation...  FINDINGS: Of 524 women who were randomly assigned between May, 28 2013 and April 26, 2016, 514 were included in outcome analyses (256 in the metformin group and 258 in the placebo group). Median gestational age at trial entry was 16·29 weeks (IQR 14·43-18·00) and median BMI was 32·32 kg/m2 (28·90-37·10); 167 (32%) participants were overweight and 347 (68%) were obese. There was no significant difference in the proportion of infants with birthweight greater than 4000 g (40 [16%] with metformin vs 37 [14%] with placebo; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·47; p=0·899). Women receiving metformin had lower average weekly gestational weight gain (adjusted mean difference -0·08 kg, 95% CI -0·14 to -0·02; p=0·007) and were more likely to have gestational weight gain below recommendations (aRR 1·46, 95% CI 1·10 to 1·94; p=0·008). ... INTERPRETATION: For pregnant women who are overweight or obese, metformin given in addition to dietary and lifestyle advice initiated at 10-20 weeks' gestation does not improve pregnancy and birth outcomes.

N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 4;374(5):434-43.doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509819. Metformin versus Placebo in Obese Pregnant Women without Diabetes Mellitus. Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH, Balani J, Hyer S, Akolekar R, Kotecha R, Pastides A, Shehata H. PMID: 26840133

[kmom summary] Randomized double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Limited to those with BMI over 35 and upped the metformin dosage. Less preeclampsia and less weight gain in metformin group but no difference in birth weight. "CONCLUSIONS: Among women without diabetes who had a BMI of more than 35, the antenatal administration of metformin reduced maternal weight gain but not neonatal birth weight."

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Oct;3(10):778-86. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00219-3. Epub 2015 Jul 9. Effect of metformin on maternal and fetal outcomes in obese pregnant women (EMPOWaR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Chiswick C, Reynolds RM, Denison F, Drake AJ, Forbes S, Newby DE, Walker BR, Quenby S, Wray S, Weeks A, Lashen H, Rodriguez A, Murray G, Whyte S, Norman JE. PMID: 26165398 Free full text here.

[kmom summary] Randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind study in 15 hospitals in the U.K. on nondiabetic women. Results: "Metformin has no significant effect on birthweight percentile in obese pregnant women."

Previous discussion of these studies and others:

• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2011/12/fourth-annual-turkey-awards-leaps-of.html
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2015/10/metformin-does-not-lower-birthweight.html
• https://wellroundedmama.blogspot.com/2016/03/once-again-metformin-does-not-reduce.html

Metformin for Gestational Diabetes or PCOS

J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Nov 20:1-141. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1550480. [Epub ahead of print] Metformin-treated-GDM has lower risk of macrosomia compared to diet-treated GDM- A retrospective cohort study. Bashir M, Aboulfotouh M, Dabbous Z, Mokhtar M, Siddique M, Wahba R, Ibrahim A, Al-Houda Brich S, Konje JC, Abou-Samra AB. PMID: 30458653

...This is a retrospective cohort study that included GDM women compared to normoglycaemic controls between March 2015-December 2016 in the Women's Hospital, Qatar. RESULTS: The study included 2221 women; of which 1420 were normoglycaemic, and 801 were GDM (358 GDM-D and 443 GDM-T)... Women in the GDM-T group had lower GWG/week compared to GDM-D (-0.01 ± 0.7 versus 0.21 ± 0.51 kg/week; p < 0.001). After correcting for age, prepregnancy weight and GWG; GDM-T had higher risk of preterm labour (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.20-2.22), and C-section (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02-1.85) and reduced risk of macrosomia (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32-0.96) and neonatal hypoglycaemia (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.82). CONCLUSION: ... Treatment with metformin reduces maternal weight gain, the risk of macrosomia and neonatal hypoglycaemia compared to diet alone.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Dec;95(12):E448-55. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0853. Epub 2010 Oct 6. Metformin versus placebo from first trimester to delivery in polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized, controlled multicenter study. Vanky E et al.  PMID: 20926533

[kmom summary] n=274 PCOS pregnancies. Randomized controlled trial with placebos. Less prematurity, but more pre-eclampsia in metformin group. Less weight gain in metformin group. No difference in fetal size between groups.  

Induction: Don't Break The Waters Early

Amnihooks, which are used to artificially break a woman's waters

New research (Pasko 2018) suggests that when care providers induce high BMI women, they should NOT break the waters in early labor (early amniotomy), especially in first-time mothers.

Breaking the waters early is commonly done to speed up labor. Sometimes it is done to place an internal monitor to monitor the baby more easily, but usually it is used to intensify contractions and shorten labor. Caregivers assume that this will help obese women avoid a cesarean.

However, the results from this new study suggest that early amniotomy actually increases the risk for a cesarean instead.

Study Details

In this retrospective cohort study, women with Class III "obesity" (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2) who were being induced  (n=285) were placed into two groups.

The first group (n=107) received early amniotomy before 4 cm dilation, and the other group (n=178) received late amniotomy.

The group who received early amniotomy had double the cesarean risk of those who did received later amniotomy.

In first-time (nulliparous) mothers, the risk for cesarean was tripled with early amniotomy. 

The length of labor was not shortened in either group. So the whole justification for using early amniotomy (shorter labor, fewer cesareans) for obese women was irrelevant.

An older study (Sheiner 2000) which examined induction by early amniotomy concluded:

In order to decrease the CS rates, induction should probably start with cervical ripening techniques in order to improve the Bishop scores.

Bishop Scores are a measure of how ripe and ready for labor the cervix is. Inductions on an unripe cervix are more likely to fail and result in cesarean, especially in first-time moms. Bishop scores tend to be lower at the start of inductions in women of size, which is probably an important factor in higher weight women's induction failures. 

Women of size also tend to have longer labors and generally take longer in latent (early) labor before reaching active labor. Yet despite this, research shows that early amniotomy is used more often in higher weight women. This needs to change.

How can early amniotomy (also known as Artificial Rupture of Membranes or early AROM) affect labor? When the water is broken, the cushioning around the baby is removed. Labor becomes much more painful, and there is risk for infection. The baby may be more likely to experience an abnormal heart rate (distress). If the baby is not well-positioned when AROM occurs, then the baby can become stuck in that position and have difficult getting out (labor dystocia). These factors can add up and result in a cesarean.

The take-home message from this study on high BMI women is obvious: Avoid having your waters broken before active labor begins (now defined as at least 6 cm dilation). This is especially important if you are a first-time mother. 

Of course, parents have to remain flexible in labor; plans may need to change. For example, if baby may be in trouble and external monitoring is not working well, then breaking the water sooner to place an internal monitor may make sense. But most of the time, amniotomy should not be done early in labor, especially in obese first-time mothers.

Induction Hints

It is best to await spontaneous labor whenever possible, so always question whether an induction is truly necessary. However, it's a hard truth that sometimes induction of labor does become medically necessary. If so, there are some lessons from research that may lessen your risk for cesarean. Most apply to women of all sizes but may be particularly relevant for higher weight women.

Ask your provider about your Bishop Score; if your cervix isn't ripe (Bishop score <5), ask if the induction can be delayed. If it cannot be delayed, ask for techniques to help ripen the cervix before pitocin is started and realize that you may need more time to reach active labor. Some research suggests that Foley catheter or prostaglandin (PGE2) inductions may be more effective in women of size than misoprostol (Cytotec).

Women of size may also need a larger dose of pitocin to keep an induced labor going strong, but this must be done cautiously because too much pitocin can send the baby into fetal distress. Wait and see how you and baby respond before increasing the dosage and go slowly with any adjustments.

Be sure you have a care provider who understands that latent labor tends to take longer in higher weight women and will give you plenty of time. Many cesareans in women of size are done before active labor, and many could probably be prevented if caregivers were more patient and waited longer before moving to a cesarean.

Be sure your baby is in an optimal position for birth before the induction if possible. Chiropractic care may help align the pelvis and maximize the space for an easier birth. If the baby is posterior (facing your front) in labor, ask your caregiver for manual rotation, which clearly reduces the risk for cesarean in several studies.

Maintain your mobility as much as possible and don't get stuck in bed on your back. Make gravity work for you. Upright positions reduce the length of labor and the risk for cesarean. Special positions like hands and knees or an exaggerated Sims position may help malpositioned babies turn more easily. You can read more aboutvarious labor and birth positions here.

As discussed, don't let the caregivers break the waters until you are well into active labor. If possible, let the waters break on their own. Keeping the waters intact as long as possible can help a malpositioned baby turn more easily.

Hire a doula to give professional labor support. One study found a cesarean rate of 13.4% in a group of first-time mothers with doulas, whereas the cesarean rate in the group without doulas was 25%. The difference was even more marked in those whose labors were induced; the group with doulas had a cesarean rate of 12.5%, vs. a 58.8% rate in those without doulas.

These ideas should improve your chances of a normal vaginal birth with an induction. Of course there are no guarantees, but rest assured that with enough time and patience, a reasonably ripe cervix, a well-positioned baby, and good support, many inductions in women of size can result in vaginal births.

Reference

Am J Perinatol. 2018 Nov 5. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1675331. [Epub ahead of print] Pregnancy Outcomes after Early Amniotomy among Class III Obese Gravidas Undergoing Induction of Labor. Pasko DN, Miller KM, Jauk VC, Subramaniam A.  PMID: 30396229 

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate differences in pregnancy outcomes following early amniotomy in women with class III obesity (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2) undergoing induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of women with class III obesity undergoing term induction of labor from January 2007 to February 2013. Early amniotomy was defined as artificial membrane rupture at less than 4 cm cervical dilation. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included length of labor, a maternal morbidity composite, and a neonatal morbidity composite. A subgroup analysis examined the effect of parity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for covariates. RESULTS: Of 285 women meeting inclusion criteria, 107 (37.5%) underwent early amniotomy and 178 (62.5%) underwent late amniotomy. Early amniotomy was associated with cesarean delivery after multivariable adjustments (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-3.47). There were no significant differences in length of labor or maternal and neonatal morbidity between groups. When stratified by parity, early amniotomy was associated with increased cesarean delivery (aOR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.47-6.58) only in nulliparous women. CONCLUSION: Early amniotomy among class III obese women, especially nulliparous women, undergoing labor induction may be associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.

External Cephalic Version after Prior Cesarean - 2018 study

People whose babies are breech and have a history of a prior cesarean are often told that External Cephalic Version (ECV), manually encouraging the baby to turn head-down, is simply not a choice for them. The fear is that manipulation done during an ECV might make the uterus rupture along the scar from the prior cesarean.

We have discussed ECV after a Prior Cesarean extensively before. The results of all the studies so far suggest that ECV after prior CS is not unduly risky and can avoid many unnecessary repeat cesareans. ECV should be offered to women at term with a breech presentation, regardless of prior cesarean status. Unfortunately, ECV is woefully underutilized. One study from New Zealand estimated that only 26% of eligible patients with breech presentations were referred for ECV.

2018 Study

Recently, a new study (Impey 2018) was published that looks again at the question of ECV after prior cesarean (CS). Its results were both encouraging and disappointing.

In this new U.K. study, researchers looked back retrospectively over a 16 year period and found 100 cases where babies of women with a prior cesarean presented breech at term, were offered, and consented to a ECV.

Basically, the study found about a 50% rate of success in turning the baby head-down. Those who had head-down babies afterwards had a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), and 68% had a VBAC.

The authors did a literature search on ECV after prior CS and found no increased rate of uterine rupture after ECV. That agrees with the literature search we did.

However, the authors chose to dilute this good news by pointing out that while ECV avoided some cesareans, only 30 women out of the 100 original group had a VBAC. In other words, while they found the practice safe, the way they word the abstract made it sound like instituting a practice of ECV after prior cesarean is not worth pursuing because it is only marginally successful.

This flies in the face of previous research. The big question is why their ECV success rate was so low. Only 50% of their ECV tries worked to turn the baby head-down. That reduced their candidates for TOLAC by half, and then only about 2/3 of these women had a VBAC. That's why the final numbers were low.

If you look at comparable studies, Weill 2016 had a 74% ECV success rate, while Burgos 2014 had a 67% ECV success rate. Why were their results so much better? That's what the UK study authors should be asking themselves. Seems like they need training on how to do ECV more successfully.

Summary

The good news from the study is that External Cephalic Version after a prior cesarean is safe. There are potential risks inherent to the procedure, of course, but these risks do not appear to be any greater in women with prior cesarean than in those without a prior cesarean. And of course, the alternative of an automatic repeat cesarean with a breech carries its own potential risks that also must be considered. The choice should be up to the mother.

The bad news from the study is how few women with prior cesareans are being offered ECV and how low the ECV success rate was. It took 16 years in the study to find a data pool of 100 women who had a prior cesarean and a breech presentation at term who were offered an external version and who accepted it. ECV is tremendously underused, especially in those with a prior cesarean. And a ECV success rate of only 50% is pitiful. Better training is obviously needed.

External Cephalic Version at term can avoid many unnecessary cesareans, yet it is woefully underused in many institutions. It is a reasonable choice that needs to be expanded, especially in women with prior cesareans. Furthermore, training to achieve greater ECV success rates in more places needs to occur.



References

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Dec;231:210-213. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.036. Epub 2018 Oct 22. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: A cohort study of 100 consecutive attempts. Impey ORE, Greenwood CEL, Impey LWM. PMID: 30412904

OBJECTIVE: External cephalic version is commonly not performed in women with a previous cesarean section. Fear of uterine rupture and cesarean section in labor are prominent. The risks, however, of these are unclear. This study aims to document the safety and efficacy of external cephalic version in women with a prior cesarean section in a series of 100 consecutive attempts, and to perform a literature of the existing literature. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data of external cephalic version attempts in women at term with a previous cesarean section, and a literature review of previously published series. External cephalic version was performed by one of 3 experienced operators, with salbutamol tocolysis if appropriate, using ultrasound to visualize the fetal heart and place of fetal parts. RESULTS: 100 women with a prior cesarean section underwent external cephalic version over a 16-year period in one institution. 68% had no previous vaginal delivery. The external cephalic version success rate was 50%, and 30 (63.8%) of these subsequently delivered vaginally. There were no cases of uterine rupture or other complications. A literature review of series containing a total of 549 cases revealed no cases of uterine rupture or perinatal death. CONCLUSIONS: External cephalic version in women with a prior cesarean section is safe but enables a vaginal birth in only about a third of women.

Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Sep 14. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12527. [Epub ahead of print] The efficacy and safety of external cephalic version after a previous caesarean delivery. Weill Y, Pollack RN. PMID: 27624629

BACKGROUND: External cephalic version (ECV) in the presence of a uterine scar is still considered a relative contraindication despite encouraging studies of the efficacy and safety of this procedure. We present our experience with this patient population, which is the largest cohort published to date. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ECV in the setting of a prior caesarean delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 158 patients with a fetus presenting as breech, who had an unscarred uterus, had an ECV performed. Similarly, 158 patients with a fetus presenting as breech, and who had undergone a prior caesarean delivery also underwent an ECV. Outcomes were compared. RESULTS: ECV was successfully performed in 136/158 (86.1%) patients in the control group. Of these patients, 6/136 (4.4%) delivered by caesarean delivery. In the study group, 117/158 (74.1%) patients had a successful ECV performed. Of these patients, 12/117 (10.3%) delivered by caesarean delivery. There were no significant complications in either of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: ECV may be successfully performed in patients with a previous caesarean delivery. It is associated with a high success rate, and is not associated with an increase in complications.

BJOG. 2014 Jan;121(2):230-5; discussion 235. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12487. Epub 2013 Nov 19. Is external cephalic version at term contraindicated in previous caesarean section? A prospective comparative cohort study. Burgos J, Cobos P, Rodríguez L, Osuna C, Centeno MM, Martínez-Astorquiza T, Fernández-Llebrez L. PMID: 24245964

OBJECTIVE: To determine if external cephalic version (ECV) can be performed with safety and efficacy in women with previous caesarean section. DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: Cruces University Hospital (Spain). POPULATION: Single pregnancy with breech presentation at term. METHODS: We compared 70 ECV performed in women with previous caesarean section with 387 ECV performed in multiparous women (March 2002 to June 2012). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success rate, complications of the ECV and caesarean section rate. RESULTS: The success rate of ECV in women after previous caesarean section was 67.1% versus 66.1% in multiparous women (P = 0.87). The logistic regression analysis confirmed this result (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.52-1.68; P = 0.82) adjusted by the variables associated with success of ECV. There were no complications in the previous caesarean section cohort. The vaginal delivery rate in the previous caesarean section cohort was 52.8% versus 74.9% in the multiparous cohort (P < 0.01). There were no cases of uterine rupture. CONCLUSION: Based on our data, we conclude that complications are uncommon with ECV in women with previous caesarean section, with a success rate comparable to that of multiparous women. Uterine scar should not be considered a contraindication and ECV should be offered to women with previous caesarean section with breech presentation at term.

Click here for older references on ECV after CS.

The High Price of Multiple Cesareans

A recent study once again reinforces the message that the more cesareans are done, the higher the risk for complications.

In previous posts, we have mostly discussed cesarean risks in terms of future pregnancies. We have written about Placenta Accreta Spectrum several times here already. This is where the placenta implants too deeply into the uterus. This is a life-threatening potential complication of pregnancies after cesareans, and the risk goes up with the number of prior cesareans. 

However, the risks with multiple cesareans aren't limited only to future pregnancies.

This new study highlights that the risk for other problems occurring during and after surgery also rises with the number of prior cesareans. The study found that: 

• After 2 cesareans, the risk for organ injury and hysterectomy increased
• After 3 cesareans, the risk for hemorrhage (massive bleeding) and surgical site complications increased

Injuries to organs around the area are serious because they usually involve the bladder or intestines. The more abdominal surgery someone has, the greater the risk for adhesions, scar tissue that can cause internal organs to stick together. This can make it difficult to operate in the area without causing collateral damage to organs nearby. If organ injury occurs, it can have lifelong consequences for the mother's urinary and/or G.I. system. Even if organ injury does not occur, adhesions alone can cause significant pain. For some people, it causes life-long severe pain. 

Obviously, the risk for major bleeding increases with surgery. Each successive surgery takes longer because of the scar tissue, and that increases the risk of hemorrhage even more. Some women need blood transfusions during or after the surgery. Many suffer problems with anemia, which can affect milk supply. Those with very severe hemorrhages may even experience Sheehan's Syndrome, life-long endocrinological problems because severe bleeding affected the pituitary gland. 

The risk for completely losing your uterus (hysterectomy) also increases with more cesareans. This is usually due to cases of accreta or in response to severe bleeding. The placenta cannot detach properly with accreta, or the uterus doesn't clamp down properly during surgery and the bleeding can't be stopped. Often the only way to keep the mother alive may be to take her uterus out, forever altering her fertility. . 

In addition, surgical site complications increase with each surgery. These can include infections, which can go septic and spread to the entire body. Although rare, some women die due to infections after cesareans. Others lose their uterus. Other surgical complications include seromas and hematomas (pockets of fluid or blood around the wound), and the surgical wound not healing (dehiscence). While these can be treated, they often cause long-term wounds and a painful recovery. They complicate recovery and make mothering difficult.

The Take Away Message

Sometimes when cesareans are questioned, people get all defensive. Mothers who had their babies by cesarean may feel like they are being judged or that some may think them less of a mother because of their cesarean. Doctors may feel defensive and point out the many times that cesareans have saved lives.

That's not what this is about. This is not about any one person's cesarean or a judgment about whether that cesarean was necessary or lifesaving. This is a public health issue about the overuse of cesareans and the potential consequences of that. The take away message here is:

All of the potential complications of cesareans need to be taken more seriously and cesareans used only when truly necessary. 

Cesareans are not evil. They can be a wonderful, life-saving intervention, and no one should feel like less of a mother because they had a cesarean. However, cesareans do carry risk. When overused or done without need, they can cause severe problems and even death, especially when multiple repeat cesareans are being done. 

National Public Radio has been running an excellent series on maternal mortality in pregnancy, as well as on near-misses (where the mother almost dies during or just after pregnancy), that highlights many of these complications: 

...according to the CDC, the rate at which women are suffering nearly fatal experiences in childbirth has risen faster than the rate at which they're dying. Based on the rate per 10,000 deliveries, serious complications more than doubled from 1993 to 2014, driven largely by a fivefold rise in blood transfusions. That also includes a nearly 60 percent rise in emergency hysterectomies — removal of the uterus and sometimes other reproductive organs, often to stem massive bleeding or infection. In 2014 alone, more than 4,000 women had emergency hysterectomies, rendering them permanently unable to carry a child. The rate of new mothers requiring breathing tubes increased by 75 percent, as did the rate of those treated for sepsis, a life-threatening inflammatory response to infection that can damage tissues and organs. 

"These numbers are really high, and far too many of them are preventable," said Dr. Elliott Main, medical director of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative and a national leader in efforts to reduce maternal deaths and injuries...

...more than 135 expectant and new mothers a day — or roughly 50,000 a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — endure dangerous and even life-threatening complications that often leave them wounded, weakened, traumatized, financially devastated, unable to bear more children, or searching in vain for answers about what went wrong.

Although certainly not the only factor in the rising rate of complications, many of these near-death and fatal experiences begin with cesareans. The same NPR article noted:

Only about one-third of U.S. C-sections are medically justified, according to [Eugene]  DeClercq, the Boston University maternal health expert. A web of factors explains the rest, including hospital culture (C-section rates vary widely from one institution to the next); efforts to make childbirth more convenient (C-sections can be scheduled); and indirect financial incentives. Because C-sections normally take much less time than vaginal deliveries, they are more cost-effective for hospitals and providers. Additionally, several studies point to the influence of "defensive medicine," a term for doctors' fears of being blamed by their patients for not having done everything possible to avoid medical problems.

The culture of cesareans is strong in many hospitals, and as a result many unnecessary cesareans are being done. And once a woman has had a cesarean, she is often pressured into further cesareans by doctors who say Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) is "too risky." But the fact is that multiple repeat cesareans are not risk-free either. Both VBAC and Repeat Cesarean have risks to mother and baby that must be carefully weighed. It should be up to the mother to decide which choice to pursue.

Research is clear that taken as a group, cesareans are not risk-free and should not be taken lightly or done routinely. 



References

Am J Perinatol. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1673653. [Epub ahead of print] Risk of Maternal Morbidity with Increasing Number of Cesareans. Sondgeroth KE, Wan L, Rampersad RM, Stout MJ, Macones GA, Cahill AG, Tuuli MG. PMID: 30372778

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of perioperative morbidity with increasing number of cesareans. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2004 to 2010. Patients delivered by cesarean were included. Outcome measures were a composite organ injury (bowel or bladder), hysterectomy, hemorrhage requiring transfusion, severe morbidity, or surgical site complications... RESULTS: Of the 15,872 women in the cohort, 5,144 had cesarean delivery: 3,113 primary, 1,310 one prior, 510 two prior, and 211 three or more prior cesareans. There was a significant increase in organ injury, hysterectomy, and surgical site complications with increasing number of cesareans. In multivariable analysis, the risk of organ injury and hysterectomy was increased compared with primary cesarean after two prior cesareans, and after three or more cesareans for hemorrhage requiring transfusion and surgical site complications. CONCLUSION: The risks of organ injury and hysterectomy are increased after two or more prior cesareans, and risks of hemorrhage and surgical site complications are increased after three or more cesareans.

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;295(2):303-311. doi: 10.1007/s00404-016-4221-8. Epub 2016 Oct 21. Incidence of adhesions and maternal and neonatal morbidity after repeat cesarean section. Arlier S, Seyfettinoğlu S, Yilmaz E, Nazik H, Adıgüzel C, Eskimez E, Hürriyetoğlu Ş, Yücel O. PMID: 27770246

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: We investigated the effect of repeat cesarean sections (CSs) and intra-abdominal adhesions on neonatal and maternal morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We  analyzed intra-abdominal adhesions of 672 patients. RESULTS: Among the patients, 173, 206, 151, and 142 underwent CS for the first, second, third, and fourth time or more, respectively. There were adhesions in 393 (58.5 %) patients. Among first CSs, there were no adhesions, the rate of maternal morbidity [Morales et al. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(5):461, 2007)] was 26 %, and the rate of neonatal morbidity (NM) was 35 %. Among women who have history of two CSs, the adhesion rate was 66.3 %, the adhesion score was 2.05, MM was 14 %, and NM was 21 %. Among third CSs, these values were 82.1, 2.82, 23, and 14 %, respectively. Among women who have history of four or more CSs, these values were 92.2, 4.72, 31.7, and 18 %, respectively. Adhesion sites and dense fibrous adhesions increased parallel to the number of subsequent CSs. Increased adhesion score was associated with 1.175-fold higher odds of NM and 1.29-fold higher odds of MM. The rate of NM was eightfold higher in emergency-delivered newborns (emergency: 39.4, 40 %; elective: 4.9 %). MM was 20 and 26 % for elective and emergency CSs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency operations and adhesions increased complications.

• https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger - National Public Radio article on maternal mortality in childbirth nationwide
• https://www.npr.org/2017/12/22/572298802/nearly-dying-in-childbirth-why-preventable-complications-are-growing-in-u-s  - National Public Radio article on near-misses and serious maternal morbidity, one in an excellent series of articles about maternal mortality in the U.S.
• https://news.aetna.com/2015/10/c-section-most-common-surgery-often-unnecessary/ - article about the increase in cesarean rate and how many cs are unnecessary

Exercise Reduces the Risk for Gestational Diabetes in Higher Weight Women

The Padded Lilies

Here is a recent research review that found that physical exercise reduced the risk for gestational diabetes (GD) in "obese" and "overweight" women during pregnancy.

Here is a summary of the research review, and also a discussion of how to use exercise and food timing and choices to keep your  blood sugar as normal as possible during pregnancy.

Quick View of Study Details

The authors reviewed 13 studies with a total of 1,439 participants. On the up side, they found that physical exercise reduced gestational weight gain and the risk of gestational diabetes (GD). This is good news.

On the other hand, exercise made no difference in the risk for blood pressure issues, macrosomia (big babies), cesarean rates, or premature births. This isn't bad news, but it does point out that exercise is not the panacea that some doctors hope it would be.

How significant are these findings? Well, it depends on the finding.

The weight gain finding is negligible. The difference in weight gain between groups was extremely small, about 1.14 kg. That's about two and a half pounds total. Not exactly a lot, and not enough to really make a difference in outcomes between groups. But doctors being doctors, you know they are doing cartwheels over even that. (Like 2 or 3 pounds makes a big difference in complication rates.)

However, the difference in risk for GD was more substantial. The relative risk of getting diagnosed with GD was 0.71 in the groups that had more exercise. That's nearly a 30% cut in risk for getting GD, which is significant. That should be paid attention to by people of size and their medical professionals.

The strength of this review was that it didn't just rely on results from one or two studies. They reviewed thirteen studies, which makes for stronger conclusions because the results are less likely to be from chance.

One weakness of the review is that 1,439 participants is a bit small for 13 studies. That means a lot of the individual studies were on the small side, and small studies run the risk of biasing the results. The review also noted that there was little information on newborn outcomes and that future studies should account for these concerns in their study design.

These are all important points. Better studies with more participants and tracking of neonatal outcome are needed. But what we have so far suggests that exercise is helpful in larger women.

Pregnancy Exercise for Plus-Sized Women

Women of size vary in their utilization of exercise. It's a myth that fat people never exercise. Some do lots of exercise, some don't do any, while most are somewhere in the middle. Here are some practical suggestions for increasing exercise in pregnant women who recognize the importance of exercise.

Exercise doesn't have to mean running marathons or even running at all. Forget the little skinny doctors who tell you that the only "real" exercise is running. Walking is one of the best exercises for pregnant folks, and it's much easier on the knees and hips. All you need are comfortable clothes and supportive shoes. Just go outside and take a walk around your neighborhood.

If your neighborhood is unsafe or not conducive to walking, walk around your yard or inside your house. Or get a second-hand treadmill or exercise bike for cheap off of eBay and use that inside.

Swimming or water aerobics is another exercise that works particularly well for women of size. While it's a pain to get in and out of a swimsuit when extremely pregnant, the buoyancy in the water is incredibly soothing to larger bodies. And water immersion has a strong beneficial effect on reducing swelling near the end of pregnancy, which can be quite helpful. Plus it just feels great! 

Water immersion can be particularly important for women with lipedema. The hormone changes of pregnancy can sometimes cause lipedema to get worse. But the pressure of having your legs underwater forces fluid back into your lymph system and helps it flow more freely. Remember, the lymph system doesn't have a pump like the heart directing it; it relies on exercise to improve lymph flow. If you have any degree of lipedema, it's especially important to be in water as much as you can. Even if you don't swim, just walking around in the pool is helpful.

Prenatal yoga can be another excellent choice. It's not as aerobic as other forms of exercise but the stretching and strengthening can be very helpful. The relaxation poses at the end of most classes are great for helping blood pressure and stress levels. And prenatal yoga classes tend to be more size-accepting and tolerant of different fitness levels than regular yoga classes.

If the weather outside keeps you from getting your usual exercise in, try walking or dancing around your house, going up and down the stairs, or some vigorous vacuuming. Even just using some cans to do a set of arm curls can help. [Don't laugh! I did all of those things during icy weather in my pregnancies, and even just vacuuming showed a difference in my blood sugar readings. These things helped me keep my blood sugar normal.]

If you haven't exercised much recently or are out of shape, start with what you can do and don't judge yourself about it. Start slowly, then increase the amount and frequency of what you are doing. Building a regular time for exercise in your daily routine is helpful. If you miss a workout, don't stress over it; just get back into it as soon as you can. Remember, any exercise is better than no exercise.

If you already exercise regularly, good for you! Give yourself props for what you are doing. Consider intensifying your routine by adding more sessions or changing up the kind of exercise you do. Keeping it fun helps keep it a part of your life.

Sometimes people sabotage their exercise by focusing on the wrong things. They compare themselves to others as they exercise, they feel self-conscious in front of others, or the peanut gallery in the brain keeps a running commentary of negative remarks. Put aside the negativity. Do what you can and don't beat yourself up about your fitness level, your looks, your shape, or whatever your personal demons are. Don't indulge in negative self-talk but instead focus on your improvement. Think or say body affirmations or pregnancy affirmations during your workouts. The repetition of positive affirmations during exercise can be powerful.

Exercise and Food for Managing Blood Sugar

As the study review shows, exercise can be an important part of managing blood sugar in pregnancy for women of size. However, there are ways to increase the effectiveness of exercise even more.

These are suggestions taken from the experiences in my own four pregnancies and from helpful advice from medical professionals to me and others. In my first pregnancy, I had a marginal glucose test result and was diagnosed with GD. I was put into a program to learn how to manage my blood sugar and given a glucometer. My pregnancy went fine and my baby was healthy, but that diagnosis made me subject to many more interventions than I truly needed. So I became determined to be as proactive as possible for any future pregnancies.

In my next three pregnancies, I never had GD again, despite being about the same size each time and getting older. I didn't change my weight or what I ate, but I did change how much I exercised and the food combination and timings of what I ate. Just doing that helped me avoid GD again, but I never took it for granted. I always considered myself borderline to be cautious, and I used my glucometer regularly every day to help make sure my blood sugar was staying normal.

If your family history (strong history of diabetes), prior medical history (prediabetes or prior GD), or medical condition (PCOS or reactive hypoglycemia) put you at extra risk for GD, then you should probably consider buying a glucometer and measuring your blood sugar regularly. That will give you information to guide you in what your "danger times" are, how you respond to various foods, and when adding exercise would be most beneficial. Glucometers are pretty affordable and can be bought at your local pharmacy. However, if money is an issue, your care provider may have one that you can borrow for free, leaving you just the cost of testing strips.

If you have a glucometer, you can see how your particular body responds to the blood sugar challenges of pregnancy. For example, some pregnant women have the most trouble after meals, while others have the most trouble with their fasting numbers first thing in the morning. The way you manage each is different.

Generally speaking, exercise intensity is less important than exercise frequency from a blood sugar point of view. It's not how hard you work out that matters most, but the regularity with which you do it.  In other words, walking even just a little every day is better for your blood sugar than a more intense workout once or twice a week. You are trying to lessen insulin resistance and make the insulin you have work more efficiently, and regular daily exercise works the best at this. Intensity is important for improving aerobic response, but frequency is the most important factor for blood sugar regulation. Try to exercise every day if possible, or at least five days a week.

Timing of exercise and smart food combinations are also important. Pregnant women tend to have several problem spots, like early mornings or after meals or certain foods. Placental hormones increase insulin resistance in order to increase the energy available to the baby. That means a meal that might not make your blood sugar high when not pregnant can result in a high reading during pregnancy. Or you get high readings from certain foods that don't normally raise your blood sugar when not pregnant.

If you find that your blood sugar is most volatile in the morning after breakfast, rest assured that this is a common problem for pregnant women. Many people do not eat protein with breakfast but consume very carb-intense breakfast meals like cereal with milk, a glass of juice and a muffin, or similar meals. Protein slows down the energy spike from a carb-heavy meal and keeps it from crashing later. So adding a protein food to your breakfast is one of the best things you can do to reduce morning blood sugar spikes. Taking a quick walk after breakfast is also great at smoothing out blood sugar spikes. Doing both (adding protein and going for a walk after breakfast) works best for blunting the post-breakfast spike common in many pregnant women.

Some women are intensely sensitive to certain foods at breakfast and can get blood sugar spikes from them in the morning, but no spikes from the same food later in the day. It has to do with the surge of placental hormones that often happens in the mornings. Some women who are especially sensitive simply cannot drink milk or juice at breakfast or even have fruit, but later in the day those foods are okay. The glucometer can help you discover whether you have problems with certain foods or at certain times.

If your blood sugar is running a little high routinely after all your meals, a couple of short walks each day after meals is helpful. Remember, shorter walks done more often is better than a longer walk every few days. If meals are your vulnerable time, then schedule your exercise times to happen after meals. Just work on getting your heart rate up for a sustained amount of time.

Avoiding heavy intake of carbs is helpful to improving blood sugar after meals. There's no need to eliminate all carbs, but avoid or minimize carb-intense foods like breakfast cereal, juice, muffins, pizza, bagels, and other obvious foods. Try to keep your carb intake to around 60g or less with each meal (a piece of bread is usually around 15g of carb). If you are not sure of the carb content of a food, look at the label. If there is no label, google it to get a general idea. If you do decide to have a carb-intense meal or snack for a special occasion, taking protein with your carbs or getting in some exercise afterwards can often improve blood sugar markedly, but don't do this often because it is easy to overdo.

Some people don't have much trouble with high blood sugar after meals, but instead have problems first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. If you have a tendency to high fasting blood sugars first thing in the morning, you need to investigate further because your approach to managing it will be different depending on its cause.

If your morning fastings are running just a bit high and you don't know why, try a substantial protein snack late in the evening and then take a short walk or workout before bed. Sometimes a little snack and exercise before bedtime is all you need to help the blood sugar normalize overnight.

Some women have high fasting blood sugar because they experience a "bounce." In other words, their blood sugar goes too low in the night so the body compensates by burning fat for energy, thus raising the blood sugar sharply to create enough energy for the baby. A side effect of going too low at night is spilling ketones, which is a by-product of burning fat for energy. A small amount of ketones on occasion is not a reason for concern, but a large amount of ketones on a regular basis is potentially risky for the baby. You can buy ketone sticks over the counter at local pharmacies if you want to keep track of that.

The best way to treat a "bounce" is to prevent it in the first place. Going too long without eating is a classic cause of a bounce. If you eat dinner at 6 the night before and then don't eat breakfast until 8 the following morning, that's a 14 hour fast. While that might be fine in a non-pregnant person, it's too long for many pregnant people. The body will respond by burning fat for energy and causing the morning blood sugar to go high. Keep your overnight fasts to 8-10 hours if you are having trouble with high fasting numbers in the morning.

Another common cause of a morning "bounce" is exercising before breakfast. You would think that this would be helpful in preventing high blood sugar, but again, it may cause you to go too low after an overnight fast. The liver produces glucagon and the body burns fat in order to give you the energy you need for the workout, but the price is that your blood sugar becomes elevated. Eating first and then exercising can solve that problem quite easily.

If you suspect you are experiencing an overnight bounce, the solution is to add a good snack before bedtime. However, the snack must be considered carefully. Adding a high-carb bedtime snack with no accompanying protein will spike the blood sugar and then make it crash in the middle of the night, setting up a bounce when the body compensates. A better bedtime snack is a protein-heavy snack with a whole-grain carb, which should give longer-lasting, more even energy that can regulate overnight blood sugar and prevent a bounce.

Some people find that they have "trigger foods" that cause high readings. For example, when I was pregnant I found that corn tended to make my blood sugar spike. I also found I could not consume cereal without a spike. If I ate protein with my cereal, it blunted the spike, but not enough for my satisfaction, so I just eliminated cereal from my intake. It was just a food I found I could not consume during pregnancy.

If you have reactive hypoglycemia (a tendency towards very uneven blood sugar), then eating protein every 2-3 hours is helpful. It keeps your blood sugar much more even and less prone to spikes and crashes. Eating protein every 2-3 hours is also great for people who are having a lot of pregnancy nausea, which is often related to unstable blood sugar. That doesn't mean it will prevent all vomiting; it won't. But it might well lessen it. Even if you throw up, go rinse your mouth, rest for a few moments, and then eat a small amount of protein. The secret is to avoid large amounts of food at once, but to graze frequently during the day, emphasizing protein foods with any carbs. That will help blunt the spike/crash cycle that can be so hard on the body and the baby. People with hypoglycemia also should eat well before their exercise routines and carry some quick energy foods with them in case they go low during exercise.

If you have tried all of these ideas and you are still getting high blood sugar numbers, you may need additional help to normalize your blood sugar. Your medical professional will help you decide whether to use medications like metformin or insulin. If you do end up needing insulin, it doesn't mean that you have failed, just that your pancreas cannot create enough insulin anymore to compensate for the insulin resistance from the increasing hormones of late pregnancy. Progesterone in particular peaks in the third trimester a month or more after the usual GD tests, so you may start out fine with dietary control and still end up needing insulin. Either way, don't feel guilty; it's just the way your body copes with pregnancy hormones.

These are just a few ideas that many women have found helpful in managing blood sugar during pregnancy. However, it's important to emphasize that not all GD can be prevented. Sometimes people still get GD no matter how hard they work at healthy eating and regular exercise. And while most people can manage their blood sugar with diet alone, some may also need medications or insulin to keep their blood sugar normal. If you get GD, don't view it as a personal failure. Just remember that with good care, most women with GD have good outcomes. Dealing with GD is just what you need to do to help give your baby the best possible start.

Take Home Message

The most important message from this review of studies is that exercise in pregnancy may be very helpful in people of size in lowering the risk for GD. 

If GD does occur, exercise plays an important role in managing the GD and minimizing its risks. So does careful consideration of food intake and timing. Getting a glucometer so you can monitor your results at home helps you manage things based on your own needs and responses. Although it's a pain to test, it really does allow you more control over the whole process and outcome.

Since doctors tend to get all uptight about gestational diabetes in higher weight women and a GD diagnosis is the beginning of many interventions, anything women can do to lower their risk for GD is potentially very helpful. Exercise is one of the most powerful interventions women can make on their own behalf.



References

Birth. 2018 Sep 21. doi: 10.1111/birt.12396. [Epub ahead of print] Effects of physical exercise during pregnancy on maternal and infant outcomes in overweight and obese pregnant women: A meta-analysis. Du MC, Ouyang YQ, Nie XF, Huang Y, Redding SR. PMID: 30240042

...The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of physical exercise on maternal and infant outcomes in overweight and obese pregnant women... RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 1439 participants were included. Physical exercise reduced gestational weight gain (mean difference = -1.14 kg, 95% CI = [-1.67 to -0.62], P < 0.0001) and the risk of gestational diabetes (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.57-0.89], P = 0.004) in overweight and obese pregnant women. There were no significant differences in other outcomes such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, macrosomia, and preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal exercise interventions reduced gestational weight gain and the risk of gestational diabetes for overweight and obese pregnant women, which reinforced the benefits of exercise during pregnancy. However, no evidence was found with respect to benefits and/or harm for infants. Consideration should be taken when interpreting these findings as a result of the relative small sample size in this meta-analysis. Further larger well-designed randomized trials may be helpful to assess the short-term and long-term effects of prenatal exercise on maternal and infant outcomes.

*For more information on troubleshooting  high blood sugar numbers with GD, read my article on it. Be aware it's from my old website (which I can no longer update), so some information is outdated, but most of it is still valid.